Search results

This study builds on previous investigations on the scholarship of social work faculty using h-index scores. The purpose of this paper is to compare two methods of determining the excellence of social work doctoral programs.

This study compared rankings in 75 social work doctoral programs using h-index vs the US News and World Report (USNWR) list. The accuracy of predicting scholarly productivity from USNWR rankings was determined by joint membership in the same quantile block. Information on USNWR rankings, h-index, years of experience, academic rank, and faculty gender were collected. Regression analysis was used in creating a predictive model.

Only 39 percent of USNWR rankings accurately predicted which programs had their reputation and scholarly productivity in the same rating block. Conversely, 41 percent of programs had reputations in a higher block than their scholarly productivity would suggest. The regression model showed that while h-index was a strong predictor of USNWR rank (b=0.07, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.08), additional variance was explained by the unique contributions of faculty size (b=0.01, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.02), college age (b=0.002, 95% CI: <0.001, 0.003), and location in the southeast (b=−0.22, 95% CI: −0.39, −0.06).

For many programs, reputation and scholarly productivity coincide. Other programs have markedly different results between the two ranking systems. Although mean program h-indices are the best predictor of USNWR rankings, caution should be used in making statements about inclusion in the “top 10” or “top 20” programs.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of gender and faculty rank to determine their contribution to individual variance in research productivity for doctoral social work faculty in Israel.

H-index scores were used to assess research productivity. Quantitative comparisons of the h-index scores were performed for a sample (n=92) of social work faculty from Israeli universities with social work doctoral programs. Average h-index differences were assessed between genders at each tenure-track faculty rank and between faculty ranks for each gender.

Scholarly impact varied as a function of faculty rank. There was little indication of variance due to gender or the interaction of gender and rank. The average h-index of male faculty was higher than the mean h-index for women at the rank of lecturer and full professor. Women had a higher mean h-index than men at the rank of senior lecturer and associate professor. H-index means varied most at the full professor level.

Results were congruent with previous studies demonstrating that male faculty in the social sciences have higher overall h-index scores than women. However, this study was unique in its finding that this gap was reversed for Israeli social work faculty at the senior lecturer and associate professor. Further research is needed to examine the differences in publication patterns of social work faculty in different countries.